SynthesisPatient education and counseling2026
A mixed methods systematic review of cancer treatment decision-making in vulnerable populations.
Synthesis in Patient education and counseling, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- New perspectives from evidence to action - patient-centered evidence transformation in evidence-based nursing: a narrative review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionVulnerable cancer patients are at risk of making uninformed treatment decisions. Most patient decision aids (PtDAs) have been developed for high-income country (HIC) populations, with limited testing or adaptation for use in vulnerable populations, either contextually or geographically. This review aimed to understand how PtDAs address the treatment decision-making needs of vulnerable cancer patients.
methodsWe conducted a mixed-methods systematic review of RCTs and other effectiveness studies of PtDAs as well as qualitative studies on the treatment decision-making experiences of vulnerable adults (≥18 years) with cancer. Eight databases were searched. Following PRISMA guidelines, we screened for eligible studies and appraised their methodological quality. Qualitative and quantitative findings were synthesized separately and then integrated to identify gaps and alignments between PtDA design and patient-reported decision support needs.
resultsTwenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria (14 quantitative, 11 qualitative, and one mixed method). Qualitative synthesis showed that vulnerable patients experienced high emotional and psychosocial burdens, preferred in-person support, and often encountered mismatches between their preferred and actual decision-making roles. The narrative synthesis of quantitative studies showed that most PtDAs improved knowledge (5/7 studies) and reduced decisional conflict (6/7), while their effects on shared decision-making were mixed (3/5). DISCUSSION: PtDAs that provided clear, concise information and were delivered face-to-face better addressed the needs of vulnerable patients than self-administered tools. Although patients reported significant emotional and psychosocial burdens, no PtDAs included structured counselling. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Patient decision aids should be tailored to meet the informational, emotional, and role-support needs of vulnerable cancer patients, particularly in resource-constrained settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.